As most experienced handloaders should know by now, gun powders vary in burn rate depending on application and other conditions, despite where they may appear in a list of powders from the fastest to the slowest. Such caveats are made in most reloading manuals, with the attendant cautions.

Yet most Internet “handloaders”, in looking for the “right” powder for their new-to-them rifle, want answers or suggestions as to the best powder to start with, and perhaps finish with. To be fair, we all need solid information from manuals when we begin the reloading process of an unfamiliar cartridge. In my more recent situation, it was nearly six years ago when I purchased a new rifle chambered for the 9.3 X 62 “Mauser”. (Of course, “Mauser” is not part of the official nomenclature, but was added due to the new (in 1905) cartridge being originally chambered in Mauser 98 rifles.)

(My 9.3 X 62 in a Tikka T3 Lite)

Because of a lot of indispensable handloading experience with a .35 Whelen and a .350 Remington Magnum, both within .008″ of the same bore diameter as the 9.3 X 62mm (.366-caliber), I was not completely in the dark as to what powders might work best. So I started with Alliant Reloader 15, which had worked very well in those two. It gave best results overall in each, both in accuracy and speed. However, I was to learn some additional lessons over the next few months about the matter of assumptions when it concerns the supposed behaviour of a particular powder under certain conditions.

Too many variables are involved in starting a reloading process for a new rifle, especially if it also relates to a new cartridge as well, to justify certain assumptions.

Here are some issues I had learned in using RL-15 in the .35 Whelen, the .350 Rem Mag and a .375 H&H. While it worked very well as a medium burn-rate powder in all three, there were some surprises. What were they?

First off, it worked a whole lot better in the .350 Rem Mag than in the .35 Whelen, which are supposed to be nearly ballistic twins in potential. As before explained, my .35 Whelen (not “Whelan” as some write it) was chambered in a semi-auto Remington 7400 with a very long magazine clip and throat to match. Bullets could be seated to a COL of around 3.40″ allowing the use of 63 grains of RL-15 behind the 250gr Hornady SP and 250gr Speer SPHC for an MV of slightly over 2600 fps without any issues whatsoever. Yet in working toward the same load when applied to the 250gr Nosler Partition, some primers were blown. Not only that, but I had to reduce loads for the Nosler to around 57 grains of RL-15 for less than 2500 fps! If we pay attention, we can learn something of value from such experiences — and NOT only what some may believe.

In applying RL-15 to loads in my 26″ .375 H&H, I was getting a consistent 2700 to 2715 fps behind 300gr Hornadys (the 300gr Nos. Part. had not yet returned to their repertoire.) and, as I recall, the 300 Sierra as well. But IMR4320 was doing the same thing within a grain or two. The IMR4320 was a book load for a 26″ barrel that showed within 5 fps the results I was getting from my 26″ Browning. And I had thought RL-15 was a “new” miracle-working powder! In powder lists of fastest to slowest, both RL-15 and IMR4320 now appear on the same line, indicating they have an equivalent burn rate. Yet no one ever mentioned that in “the literature” of the time.

(Very similar powders in burn rate and application)

Back to the .350 Rem Mag — It was the re-introduction of the .350 Rem Mag which had a heavy laminated stock, a steel rib on the barrel (for nostalgic reasons, though the original was plastic – not practical other than to add weight) and a heavy barrel (to add more weight, since the originals – M600 and 660s — where deemed too light creating dislike for those with sensitive shoulders). It was designated Model 673. I’d owned the original “Classic” when it appeared, and it was a beautiful rifle with walnut stock, 22″ barrel and short M7 action. But it wouldn’t produce the velocities I wanted with the powders available at the time, so it was traded for another 1895 Marlin in .45-70. However, when I bought (or traded for) the M673, it was obviously too heavy, but had the short action and a 22″ barrel — that produced the “goods” from RL-15. As mentioned, the .35 Whelen wouldn’t safely reach 2500 fps from the 250gr Nosler Partition. The most I could use of RL-15 behind the 250 NP was 57 grains for around 2475 fps from a COL of 3.40″. In contrast, the .350 Rem Mag would barely allow a COL of 2.82″. 60.5 grains of RL-15 was ALL I could get into a case and seat the 250 Speer Grand Slam to within 2.8″ to 2.82″ COL. That load gave me .338 Win Mag ballistics — I kid you not! And safely! The 250gr Speer GS worked best because it was shorter than the 250gr Nosler Partition and the 250 Speer HC. It would still give me about 2700 fps from those two and 2710 fps from the GS. The last group I ever fired from that rifle was with the 250gr GS at an average of three at 2738 fps into 3/8″ (one ragged hole) at 100 yards! The rifle was a club but would it shoot! And all that from an application of RL-15. Notice: RL-15 would NOT safely deliver 2500 fps from the 250gr Nosler Partition in my 22″, .35 Whelen with a COL of 3.40″, while it safely gave 2695 fps from the 250gr Nosler Partition and over 2700 fps from the 250gr Speer Grand Slam with a COL of 2.80 – 2.82″ COL in the .350 Remington Magnum! I guarantee this: You will not see that in any of the reloading books!

(The Remington 750 semi-auto in .35 Whelen nearly identical to my former M7400)

Yea, I know, lots of handloaders believe they know the answers to such matters, and most would say it was because the Nosler Partition is a “harder” bullet than the Speer or Hornady, and you NEVER use the same loads for different manufactured bullets. Some truth there, but that doesn’t ALWAYS work out that way either. As a matter of fact, I was able to use the same basic load for the 250 NP in the .350 Rem Mag as the 250gr Speer GS, minus 1/2 grain, and that was due to the fact of the 250 Speer GS being shorter than the 250 NP allowing that 1/2 grain extra while keeping the COL at an absolute max of 2.82″, not as a result of any disparity in the hardness factor between the two. I couldn’t get that 1/2 grain extra into the case using the longer Partition. At an average of 2695 fps, the Nosler still came within 15 fps of the Speer. So why did the .35 Whelen only safely allow 2475 fps from the same 250 Nosler Partition from an equal length barrel as the .350 Rem Mag, both made by Remington? There IS a meaningful disparity between 3400 ft-lbs from the Whelen and over 4000 ft-lbs from the .350 Rem Mag at the muzzle of rifles using the same premium bullet intended for big and possibly dangerous game! Other factors are involved which we’ll get into next time when matters that affect burn rate are discussed. With tongue in cheek I pose the following question: Could it possibly be that all barrels from the same manufacturer are not equal even though “the book” says they should be?

(My former M673 in .350 Remington Magnum.)

So! I assumed RL-15 to be by far the best for my new 9.3 X 62! It came close, but 3rd place isn’t gold!

This is off-topic somewhat, but it needs to be mentioned again because of some remarks made above regarding the overall “clubiness” of the Remington M673 compared to their “Classic” in the same chambering of .350 Remington Magnum. I would still have the “Classic” today if RL-15 were available at the time. And I would still have the M673 IF it had not been made in reaction to complaints over “felt recoil” of the models 600 and 660. What I wanted was what the Classic delivered in form and weight but with the ballistics that I got from the Model 673! Now that I have the T3 TIKKA Lite in 9.3 X 62, and a “new” powder that delivers more than expected, I have more than the two Remingtons could come up with even IF the Classic could have produced what RL-15 did in the M673! So the RIGHT powder in a particular application is THAT important to at least some of us.

All of the above is to highlight some powder application issues that will receive attention in that which follows in Part 2. In doing so, it will be necessary to give some basics on powder fabrication and function. This may seem boring to those somewhat advanced in knowledge and experience of these issues but, believe me, there are still many mysteries entailed even for the professionals. I will try to explain some of it, but it is like a slippery slope rather than hard physics. There are many generalities but few hard facts, as most seem to think are presented in their reloading books. I’d say, reloading books are Reloading 101 — excellent for beginners, not Reloading 404! And yet some manuals are better than others in that regard.

As always, I must state the following: THESE ARE/WERE MY LOADS IN MY RIFLES. YOU ALONE ARE RESPONSIBLE FOR SAFE HANDLOADING PROCEDURES. MY LOADS ARE NOT RECOMMENDATIONS, THEY ARE SIMPLY EXAMPLES OF POSSIBILITIES UNDER CERTAIN, AND PERHAPS “UNIQUE” CONDITIONS.

So, if this intrigues you, come back again where we’ll get into Reloading 202, and maybe 303.

Shalom

BOB MITCHELL

FOR ANYONE INTERESTED: A member of our range, by the name of “Mike”, has a “pile” of once-fired Federal factory .308 Winchester brass, and some .30-06 as well, that he’d like to get rid of for about $50 Cdn. I’m unsure of how this would work for U.S. citizens, but for some Canadians he may be reached at 1-289-314-1215. Mike lives in The Greater Toronto Area.

To anyone who follows these blogs, it’s not news that my favorite of favorites in big game rifles is a single-shot. I’ve owned several, and still own one — the Ruger No.1 in .45-70 pictured on the header.

The vast majority of hunters do not choose single-shot rifles for serious hunts of big-game where big money is involved. I understand their logic. Still, many sportsmen purposefully select a single-shot for a particular hunt that might cost several thousands of dollars in the pursuit of large and/or dangerous game. Why?

In making an honest attempt to understand the reasons behind such actions, I’ll also try to shed some light on the more recent phenomenon of military-type weapons with huge banana clip magazines that are showing up with increased regularity at our range. Again, why? Both types of hunters seem somewhat normal in their choices of cars, trucks, spouses, food, clothes, etc, so what gives with choices for hunting that appear extreme — err, not the “norm”?

(At another bear-bait site in the Haliburton Highlands. This was deer season and my rifle was the one on the header — the Ruger No.1 in .45-70 IMP. The load was 350gr Speers.)

The most obvious answer, to what may appear at first sight to be “irrational behaviour”, is that it’s simply a matter of the overused cliche’ of “different strokes for different folks”. There’s some truth in that notion, but there’s more to it than that — at least to me that seems a bit trite. In about sixty years of game hunting, I never used a single-shot rifle for anything larger than a skunk until I purchased a Ruger No.1 in 7mm Remington Magnum twenty-three years ago. That preceded my first Ruger No.1 in .45-70 by one year. A single-shot .22LR was used to kill some pests prior to ownership of my first big-game rifle. But that was over sixty years in past history. I did also own a single-shot H&R in .22 Hornet but it never went hunting with me except for a couple of hours for a tryout of some handloads on a groundhog. It was never fired at anything living. Shortly thereafter it was sold to one of my sons just prior to our move to Nova Scotia. So, that brief history with single-shots was insufficient to galvanize any love affair with them. My “love affair” began with the Ruger No.1’s. That would indicate to me, at least, that strong feelings in favor of single-shot rifles was due to the grace, beauty, balance, handiness, strength, simplicity, smoothness and over-all potential of a big-game rifle in a single-shot format of a Farquharson falling-block design. Actually, Ruger introduced their No.1 in 1967, and their design is proprietary with some dissimilarities from Farquhrson’s basic design. In my research in regard to the strength of Ruger’s No.1 falling-block action, I’ve been informed from several sources that it’s the strongest of that design, and in strength their .45-70 is equal to the Ruger No.1 in .458 Winchester Magnum.

It’s quite a few years ago that my interest peaked in Big Bores, particularly in the .458 Winchester Magnum. In one shop there was a beautiful Ruger No.1 in .458 Win Mag on display and I was granted permission to handle it. However, there were a couple of reasons hindering the purchase of that rifle: One was that I didn’t have the money and the other was that if I did have the cash it wouldn’t have gone into that particular rifle due to the fact it was too-heavily balanced toward the muzzle-end. With it’s heavy-duty 24″ barrel and minimal weight in the action, the muzzle seemed unduly committed to the pull of gravity. Yet the .45-70 with the same action has a shorter and slimmer 22″ barrel that balances perfectly with scope and ammo when held with one hand just in front of the trigger guard. I’m glad I waited for a Ruger No.1 in .45-70.

Several years ago, I wrote a brief series on the advantages of a single-shot rifle. Some of that will likely be mentioned again, though I have no intention of re-reading what I wrote at that time, or checking to see if I’m merely re-hashing the same material. Likely some of it will be the same or similar. However, there are always new readers, and I will likely mention some things not highlighted at that time. Moreover, my thoughts on these and some other matters are usually progressive, not rigid — except in matters of faith, morality, etc.

In contrast to a newer generation of shooters and hunters who seem to favor “fire power”, as in multiple shots in quick succession, I’m much more inclined to precision shooting and making that first shot count. In fact, I’ve rarely had to shoot a game animal twice, or rarely had the opportunity to do so because of physical constraints of terrain.

I’ve owned two big-game rifles that were semi-automatics — a BAR in 7mm Remington Magnum and a Remington 7400 in .35 Whelen. Despite popular opinions to the contrary, the 7400 was the better of the two. Yet, despite their potential “fire power”, neither was fast enough to get off a quickly aimed second shot in close quarter bear hunting — in heavily wooded brush country — and that is factual. In baiting bears, the scene looks mostly like this photo, and a “hit bear” that is not dropped on the spot can literally disappear in an instant — less than two seconds! I’ve witnessed it first-hand! That’s when I learned that my beloved .35 Whelen in semi-auto would have been no faster than a single-shot if I were not just “throwing lead”!

(I’ve shot several bears from this location in the Haliburton Highlands. On this occasion, an 1895 Marlin in .45-70 was my companion. Range was 97 yards to bait. The bait barrel is shown below in the next pic.)

About 1/4 century ago in mid-November I was sitting near the bottom of a ridge overlooking an area filled with new growth of spruce and fir that was about head high. This was adjacent to a stream. I knew there were doe in there, and likely a buck or two. The rifle accompanying me was a bolt-action, but I fail to recall which one. Anyway, about 8 a.m. I heard a barrage of fire… It seemed about ten yards from me in a direction slightly over my right shoulder where, incidentally, I couldn’t see because I was enclosed in some dense brush that only opened in the direction of the mentioned young spruce and fir bush. That hunter knew a couple of other hunters were in the area but didn’t know exactly where. He was still hunting down the ridge and was literally only a few yards from me when a big doe came out of the thick bush. I got up from my position and walked toward the sound of rifle fire and met him looking for the doe. His firearm was a Remington semi-auto in .30-06. As I recall, three shots, and possibly four, were fired. The big doe was dead on the far side of the stream. The only bullet that hit her was from the first shot as she was starting to browse and nearly still. The other shots were wasted as the doe was fleeing. Mature does in north country can go well over 200 lbs — she went about 50 yards before piling up. In that particular case, a single-shot rifle in .30-06 would have accomplished the same thing.

I’ve met up with a lot of deer hunters in our neck-of-the-woods who tote semi-autos, often in .308 Winchester. I fully understand their rationale because this is north-woods country that is rugged and mostly unspoiled. However, when a deer is sighted it is usually in flight because of hounds or hunters pretending they are hounds in howling like them. To catch a legal deer in the open, browsing cheerfully, is mostly mythology in those kind of conditions. That may happen during the first couple of hours on opening day, but thereafter the whitetails are on high alert in all-out hiding far from the beaten path! To move them, you must go in after ’em, or send dogs. From that point on the name-of-the-game is “fire power”. There’s a lot of lead in the air in hopes of some of it connecting with adrenalin-charged whitetails! But the story-line is far different for our moose and bears. If they are being chased by hounds, there will be some similarities, but hound-hunting of each is rare, not the norm. There is a more likelihood of catching them unawares through baiting (for bears) or calling (moose). In such a scenario, an adequate single-shot isn’t out of place for a practised and patient hunter.

Well do I recall, it’s many years ago now, being in a gun shop in The Greater Toronto Area where a giant of a young man — compared to my size and age anyway — behind the counter was graphically describing the bringing down of the largest buck he’d ever seen. He was using an European made semi in .30-06 with a full clip. The buck was bounding through hair-thick brush and he unleashed all the fire power of his semi in it’s direction. It was finally brought to earth with a thud! According to him, he actually hit it about every other shot. Upon examination and dressing out, he discovered a slug or two, plus schrapnell from other bullets besides his own. To this day, I don’t think he was telling a “tall tail”, as he wasn’t that kind of person. And I believe it because of too many incidents of that nature occurring annually in the pursuit of our big buck whitetails. So I am sympathetic to “fire power” under certain conditions, just as much as I am for single-shot rifles of adequate power under other conditions.

(There’s a doe and buck in this photo — buck partially obscured by brush near left edge — plus a bear-bait barrel — left click for enlargement. I was hunting bear. My rifle was the Ruger in .45-70 loaded with 300gr TSX’s at an MV of 2645 fps. Range was 135 yards. This was on private property surrounded by the Queen Elizabeth II Wildlife Park. Lots of bears there. I shot a very good one here in 2015.)

As I see it, here are some strong points in favor of big-game single-shot rifles:

1) Even with a 26″ barrel they are no longer than a bolt-action rifle with a 22″ barrel. My Ruger No.1 in 7mm Remington Magnum with it’s 26″ was still only 42″ in overall length. My Ruger No.1 in .45-70 is only 38″.

2) Fewer metal parts. This has an advantage in two ways: less to break or go wrong, and less weight.

3) No magazine to constrain cartridge overall length. This permits seating bullets farther out of the case, especially the long all copper ones, granting more room for powder. A simple job for a competent gunsmith is to lengthen the throat if need be. In effect, it’s the same as a longer cartridge.

4) Fewer small parts, and a solid steel block in a mortise holding the cartridge in place usually means more strength overall.

5) It disciplines the mind to become an expert shooter knowing that the first shot might become the only one.

However, I carry five in a buttstock cartridge holder. I can load a fresh one and fire an aimed shot within four seconds.

Of course, it’s true that any rifleman, regardless of the number of cartridges on tap, should realize that it’s the first one that’s most important. Yet the trend toward “fire power” doesn’t teach or encourage that principle. Instead it lends belief to the notion that multiple bullets in the air will give a better chance of hitting something vital. Where does this idea come from and how did it get started?

The youth of today, especially boys, have grown up with all sorts of computer “shoot ’em up” and “blow ’em up” games. They are action oriented, and by the time they show up at gun ranges they have real “shoot ’em up” AR’s of one kind or another — often several. I’ve had them shoot beside me at the next bench over with brass flying in my direction. My son had that experience just last week at the range — two young men in their twenties firing an AR in 7.62 X 39mm. And, of course, using banana clips! They were not shooting for accuracy but, rather, to blow away the silhouette of a human! But now it’s not limited to the “younger generation”. Older men, approaching my age are getting in on the “fun”. One guy, “fifty-ish” was shooting one with the typical flash-hider in what looked like a 12-inch barrel! What a racket! And the muzzle blast was driving my Chrony nuts as well! I doubt that most of these people will make it into the hunting woods — at least I hope not! But it is, nonetheless, an omen of things to come… I think.

This is not intended to bad-mouth the American “system”, but with most young American men having spent some time in the military, it’s natural I suppose for them to choose AR type weapons for hunting. With increasing adds in the magazines promoting AR types for hunting, it’s bound to happen. However, I think it discourages marksmanship and reliance primarily on that first shot.

Still, with the exponential rise of the hog population across the southern tier of the US, it seems to have a legitimate place in a hunter’s arsenal.

After all, with fifty or a hundred and fifty hogs tearing up a farmer’s property, there’s little doubt that a single-shot rifle might feel out of place.

And oh, by the way, I do use bolt-action rifles — a lot! In fact, I’ve owned and used more of them than all others combined, and that includes another favorite, the lever-action.

Of course, the .45-70 of today is hardly the same as the .45-70 black powder Springfield single-shot of 1873. True, there are still nostalgic hunters who attempt to experience the days of yore in owning and loading BP single-shot rifles in .45-70, and several other similar BP cartridges. But the market for newly manufactured lever-actions, from Winchester and Marlin in particular, is aimed at those who will use them in the pursuit of big game. And a healthy percentage of those are handloaders. While there are still some who like to experiment with the likes of .45-90s and .45-110s, etc, it is really the .45-70 that not only has “hung on” but experienced a revival of sorts from about 1972 when Marlin re-introduced it’s model 1895 in .45-70 in it’s Big Bore series starting with the .444 Marlin in 1964. They also “beefed up” the action to handle the higher pressures attributed to the 444 Marlin at 44,000 cup. Some say that the “new” 1895 should not be loaded at that level, and 28,000 cup/psi is ample for most tough critters anyway as long as you get close enough and can lob those heavy chunks of metal into vitals.

The point about it being ample or enough bears some truth. However, it seems to me at least, since most hunters make use of scopes on their rifles, and Marlin makes that an option for the new 1895, why not take advantage of the option of not lobbing a 405gr at 1310 fps but speeding it along at 2000 + fps? Or even at 2100 fps, as I have done hundreds, if not thousands, of times without worry or trauma? Here’s a little secret: One famed writer out of Alaska used to load, for his outfitter employer — at the employer’s request — the 500gr Hornady RN Interloc at 1900 fps!! That was from a “new” 1895 Marlin! While pressure was “up there”, no doubt, it didn’t fall apart or blow up! Now, he (the author) in private correspondence didn’t recommend it, and I’ve not tried it, but I have fired a 465gr hardcast at 1939 fps (avg) from one of my 1895 Marlins, with a 22″ barrel, many times over into MOA! That, without a hiccup! I’ll not say “without trauma”, as recoil was “up there” at around 44 ft-lbs. Now, I’ve shot many loads from several rifles well beyond 44 ft-lbs, but not with stocks shaped like an 1895 Marlin with it’s excessive drop at the comb and its rather thin and hard recoil “pad”.

Since then, Marlin has marketed several external forms of the 1895, including the 1895 SS (my first Marlin) with the Micro-grove rifling. It had a very plain walnut stock, a thick, hard rubber recoil pad, white-line spacers and the “hated” dual push-button safety (which I didn’t “hate”, by the way). I shot my first black bear with it. The load was a 400gr Speer using a max load of H322 developing an average MV of 1865 fps, with good accuracy I might add. The trophy bear was shot behind the right shoulder at 100 yards. It flipped over backwards and made a dead run for ten yards before piling up in some alders. I was up in a moose hunting stand on the side of a ridge and could see it on it’s back with all four paws flailing the air. From offhand, I gave it another (not needed) between neck and shoulder followed by a cloud of steam drifting heavenward. The last 400gr Speer fell out on skinning from the opposing armpit (see it in the following photo).
It retained 90.5% of unfired weight. The first bullet came out with the innards sometime after dark when the animal was field dressed, and was lost. When I got down from the moose-hunting platform and finally located the bear in alders and eye-level brush, I thought it was destroyed! It’s whole right side was saturated with its life-sustaining red liquid! Anyway, there it is hanging on my office wall. That was a spring black bear from Central Ontario in 1989. From that initial experience, I fell in love with the .45-70 in a newly manufactured rifle using modern component handloads. Since then, I’ve owned three other Marlins in .45-70, plus two Ruger No.1’s and a couple of single-shot New England Firearms.

What’s the attraction? To put matters into perspective, I’ve owned and used lots of magnums from 7mm to .458, including .300s, .338s and .375s, plus .35 Whelens and .350 Remington Magnums. All of it prior to my current 9.3 X 62. But the .45-70 when loaded with modern components in a new Marlin, Winchester or Ruger No.1 (sadly, no longer manufactured by Ruger) can match or exceed results of the magnums mentioned depending on how each is handloaded and distances involved. This essay is not about controlling recoil, but just the facts on potential performance.

I acknowledge, of course, that not every purchaser of a Marlin, for instance, is going to push it’s limits. Most of these have other rifles for longer ranges and many others “just want a Marlin in .45-70” to fill an empty spot in their gun safe or locker. Currently, our largest local gun store has forty-two 1895 Marlins in .45-70 with ABL, SBL and GG stocks of various styles and colors, and barrels of 18.5-inches! Also, included in that number are several “Classics”, which is my personal favorite with its 22″ barrel — all with the Ballard rifling. That shop, by the way, sell ’em as fast as they get ’em! So, the fever for owning a Marlin in .45-70 hasn’t left us yet! In addition to all that, that store also has a number of new 1886 Winchesters in that chambering in stock. The “problem” with the Winchesters is that they are very expensive compared to the Marlins — about double! But still, there must be a market or the shop wouldn’t stock them. Since our dollar is now worth about 75 cents compared to the American dollar, prices have escalated accordingly. Nonetheless, there are apparently lots of Canadians who have adopted one of the American historic favorites, and I’m among them.

I’m not a nostalgic person, per se, but, to me, a lever-action that’s handy, powerful and a big-bore makes a lot of sense. If used in hunting, depending on factory ammo from Winchester, Federal, Remington, and other “big name” producers, it would lack luster and attraction as most of it is quite anemic in power being based on ancient pressure parameters of around 28,000 cup/psi. The Marlin from 1972 onward can easily handle 40,000+ psi. The Winchester a bit more, and the Ruger up to 60,000 psi+. NEF and H&R (same company) about 45,000 to 50,000 psi. So those are not in the same league as ancient Sharps, Rolling Blocks, Marlins and Winchesters intended for a limit of 28,000.

In the USA, Americans can order specialised ammo for the.45-70 from http://www.garrettcartridges.com and http://www.buffalobore.com. Both are famous suppliers of hard-hitting .45-70 ammo. It is very costly, though! In Canada, we’re not so fortunate. Some shops may order them from the States, but waiting time may be forever! And the cost? Thank you, but I’ll make my own!

For some points of reference, I’ll make mention of some of my favorite loads in the Ruger No.1 (IMP), and those that I favored for Marlins and NEFs. I’ll give powder, bullets and MVs, but NOT powder charges. I may resurrect my reloading manual on the .45-70 this coming winter, including some updates if needed. If so, I’ll give notice of that in one of my blogs.

500gr Hornady Interloc at 2015 fps//4507 ft-lbs//Powder:AA2015 (This load was tested for me by the AA facility in the USA before it became a part of Western Powders. Bill Falen Jr. did the test. In their lab it gave 2096 fps at an average psi (NOT cup) of 63,200 psi. He pronounced it safe in the Ruger. They had to seat the bullet at 2.83″ rather than the “standard” 2.93″ in both Hornady’s and Lyman’s manuals. I was able to seat the bullet to 2.93″ COL. So the test produced more pressure than what I was getting, and more velocity due to that fact and a longer 24″ test barrel.

The Ruger mentioned below was new (out-of-the-box) with a slightly shorter throat. Nonetheless, I was still able to seat the 500gr Hornady at 2.93″ COL. After a couple of months of ownership, I had the throat extended by .30″ in order to use the all-copper Barnes X-Bullets (It’s the Ruger pictured on the header).

Those are some of the loads in my manual called: SUPREME Loads for The .45-70

Since the 143 year old .45-70 was in part responsible for nearly wiping out the North American Bison during its BP days, and since in recent times the 1895 Marlin Classic in the hands of Vince Lupo has taken all of the five or six DG of Africa using Garrett Hammerheads, perhaps this page isn’t really necessary… However, I thought you might want to know what a common Bob thinks… Just maybe.

(This group of three 350gr TSX’s @ 2560 were fired at 100 yards from my Ruger No.1 (IMP) this past spring. The rifle was zeroed for a different load, and I was shooting several loads that day without changing POA.)

I was on the phone a few days ago with Ryan at Barnes Bullets. The question was asked, “At what speed will the 350gr TSX/.458″ still expand in an animal?” Having tested this bullet in both a .458 Win Mag and my Ruger No.1 in .45-70 IMP at our range more than 60 times, I came to the conclusion that it’s BC should be upgraded to .338 instead of the rather unimpressive .278. So that’s the B.C. number I use for my conditions. Ryan emphatically stated that it would expand at 1600 fps in animal flesh and bone. If true, on both accounts: if it’s B.C. is .338 and it will expand down to 1600 fps, then it’s logical to assume that I have a .45-70 that will shoot flat enough with plenty of “knock-down” power at 400 yards making over 1600 fps and over 2000 ft-lbs. Using my TE formula, with a hit in the vitals, that should be good enough for a one-ton animal! From a 220 yard zero, the 350 TSX at 425 yards is about -35″ still producing over 2000 ft-lbs. So, I wouldn’t hesitate to give it a go on a bull moose at that range if given a chance. Said another way: If given the opportunity, I haven’t a doubt that the rifle and load in question would perform as expected on anything I might wish to hunt.

In Part 1 of this topic a brief look at the history of these two cartridges was presented as well as my personal history associated with them. In summary, I set out to sell the idea that they belong in the same class of cartridges and rifles designed for large-tough critters, as well as hazardous.

That’s not exactly news to those familiar with the ballistics and history of each. The .338 Win Mag’s purpose from the time it appeared in the Winchester M70 Alaskan was to take on the large bears and moose of the 49th State, and in that it has earned its keep, in addition to proving its worth on medium-large game in Africa as well as in the Lower 48 states and Canada. It has become a favorite choice for hunters of elk and moose as well as black bear and other tough game at longer ranges such as goats and sheep where a mixed bag is probable.

The 9.3 X 62 cut its teeth in Africa being successfully employed on just about anything from dik-dik to elephant starting in 1905. So it hardly needs any argument in defence of its capabilities. Though today there is much more and better factory ammo as well as premium components available to the handloader. While most suppliers of rifles and ammo have traditionally been European, today company names that we may be more familiar with have become involved. These would include: Hornady, Remington, Swift, Barnes, Nosler, Speer, Ruger, CZ, Tikka and Sako to name a few. In a recent review of the websites of EPPS in Orillia and TradeEx Canada, I discovered that the elite rifle maker, Sauer, appears to be shipping into Canada a large number of rifles chambered for that historic cartridge. The last five named produce rifles in that chambering in addition to the famed American gun manufacturer, Ruger. Mine is a Tikka T3 Lite manufactured in a Sako plant with a match-grade Sako 22.44″ barrel. The rifle is “Lite” at about 6.3 lbs out of the box. Scope, rings and ammo add just slightly more than a pound.

The .338 Win Mag rifles that I made reference to in my last piece were a Sako FS Carbine with a 20″ barrel that weighed approximately 8 3/4 lbs ready for action; the .338 Win Mag in a Remington 700 with a 24″ stainless 24″ barrel and synthetic stock belonging to my son was about the same weight. And finally, the 26″ Browning A-Bolt SS in LH would have been no heavier than the others. So my Tikka 9.3 X 62 would be around 1 and 1/4 lbs lighter than those three .338s.
(Similar to mine, but not identical)

So, we’ll have a look at handling and recoil as well as ballistics. In my opinion, it shouldn’t be lost on anyone who is familiar with both cartridges that they can serve quite well on lesser game such as hogs and whitetails in addition to toting one of these into areas where shots on large game, and dangerous, could be taken at both short, medium and long range. I will qualify by the ballistic charts that follow what might be intended by long range as well as serving as “mountain rifles”.

The aim is to be realistic and fair in the comparison of three sets of ballistics. Since I’ve experience with only one 9.3 X 62, a modern rifle in the fullest sense of the term, that has a 22.44″ (570 mm) barrel. I will synchronize the results of the three .338s I’m familiar with along with the results of RealGuns.com (that used a Ruger Hawkeye African with a 23″ barrel). RealGuns’ data is more recent from a new rifle that is close enough in barrel length to my 9.3 Tikka. At the end I’ll make some conclusive remarks.

Unless someone has strong biases in favor of one over the other due to preconceived notions, or more experience with a .338 WM in the USA on the one hand, or more experience in Africa with the 9.3 X 62 on the other, it appears to me that in all fairness, knowing rather intimately the performance of each, that one might conclude that the .338 WM has a slight advantage at longer range for medium game due to a smaller bore and lighter bullets, while the 9.3 X 62 has a slight advantage on the heavier stuff due to a larger bore and heavier bullets. There is no question that the .338 WM has an advantage in sheer number and variety of bullets offered, though I personally consider that of dubious real advantage because the 9.3 X 62 has plenty of premium expanding bullets designed for the game most commonly shot with this cartridge. The increased number for the .338 WM has mostly to do with bullets for smaller game at longer range. However, I only see that as advantageous if one intends to use their .338 WM as a deer rifle or for mountain hunts of sheep or goats — or in similar situations.

(My former .340 WBY. It’s original chambering was in .338 Winchester Magnum before I had it re-chambered to a .340)

The .338 WM cartridges by Winchester were initially loaded with a 200gr, a 250gr and a 300gr. That made a lot of sense in 1958. The 200 was intended for the likes of whitetails or anything similar (of course, there is a decided disparity in the size and weight of those); the 250gr was conceived as fulfilling the main purpose of this round — the dispatching of large bears and moose and any others that might fit into that class; the 300gr had in mind the big and dangerous where ever found. Ballistics were: the 200 at 2970 fps, the 250 at 2700 fps and the 300 at 2410 fps. As time marched on the 300 was dropped and the MV of the 250 was lowered to 2660 fps (3927 ft-lbs). Of course, as the .338 became more and more popular for the likes of grizzly, moose and elk (elk in particular), emphasis was placed on a bullet heavier than 200 and less so than 250 that appeared slow compared to a .30-06. So the compromise 225gr was conceived and readily embraced as the finest thing going. It had good weight and sectional density. Muzzle velocity was right up there and even slightly better than a 180gr from a .30-06. Today, with better bullets and faster MVs, the 225s seem the most favored among .338 WM users. Factory loads were said to make 2780 fps (3860 ft-lbs) that was an improvement over the .300 WM by around 300 ft-lbs at the muzzle. Yet the handloader has discovered in recent times that even the original ballistics can safely be enhanced by quite a bit. Not only are there better powders and bullets that have substantially improved performance all around, but a multitude of domestic rifle makers, as well as nearly as many abroad, that produce excellent rifles out-of-the-box with barrel lengths of 18-inches to 26. Surely, I’d not dare to neglect mention of excellent custom builders as well, making the .338 Win Mag one of the most popular rifles extant in bolt-actions, singles and semi-autos. Yes, and perhaps even in a double. I have often thought that a .338 WM in a Browning BAR would be an excellent thing for the one rifle shooter. I found that idea very tempting myself, except for it’s cumbersome weight and over-pricing compared to the excellent Remington 7400 I once owned in a .35 Whelen — but that was no lightweight either.

So, here we go with some ballistics from each: For the .338 WM I’ve chosen a 225gr TTSX, a 250gr NP and the 275gr Swift A-Frame.

In my Tikka T3 Lite in 9.3 X 62 I’ll go with what I have experienced from these three: a 250gr AB, the 286gr NP and 320gr Woodleigh.

Keep in mind that to give some parity the .338 will get a 23-inch barrel (the Ruger Hawkeye African), and the 9.3 X 62 the 22.44-inch of my Tikka.

The .338 Win Mag will get these MVs: the 225gr TTSX = 2837; the 250gr NP = 2747 fps; and the 275 AF = 2590 fps.

The 9.3 X 62 will get the MV’s I have used: 250gr AB = 2714; the 286gr NP = 2622 fps and the 320gr Woodleigh = 2464 fps. All of those, by the way, come within a few feet-per-second of prognostications by QuickLoad at just under 64,000 psi. 64,000 is the max psi for the .338 WM, and I use that as a standard for a newly manufactured 9.3 X 62.

(Yes, that is from my 9.3 X 62 firing the 286 NP. Corrected to MV it was going 2643 fps/4435 ft-lbs. While 2622 fps is my standard load, 2643 never gave any signs whatsoever of unsafe pressure.)

Apart from trajectory, there are four means of measuring external ballistics (in this order): Velocity, kinetic energy, momentum (Keith formula) and Terminal Effect (TE). TE is my formula that I’ve used for many years after trying several others. It’s based on kinetic energy at impact while incorporating both sectional density and cross-sectional area of the bullet. Some argue that SD changes at impact from a soft-point expanding bullet, therefore it’s meaningless to incorporate it into a formula. Yet the same people argue that, all else equal such as construction, the bullet with a higher SD will penetrate deeper. I believe this to be a general principle. But momentum is also a factor whether believed so or not. For example, a heavy 450gr/.458-cal big-bore bullet may only be making the same energy at impact as a 200gr .308-cal — let’s say 1500 ft-lbs from each — but actual observation of the facts reveal that most times the large-bore .458 (cross-sectional-area = .165 sq.in., SD = .307) will have a greater lethal effect on large game than the .308/200gr (cross-sectional-area = .074 sq.in., SD = .301). Momentum is also considered by many big-bore users to be a factor as well, and I’m of that persuasion though it’s more difficult to quantify in lethal terms.

The example given above could be used to express this distinction: A 450gr/.458″ making 1500 ft-lbs at impact is only going 1225 fps. On the other hand, a 200gr to make 1500 ft-lbs needs an impact speed of 1838. But look at the momentum difference: For the 200gr to have the same momentum as the 450gr it must be speeding along at 2756, NOT 1838 fps! That’s more than a .30-06 can fire a 200gr at the muzzle.

Should you think momentum doesn’t count, shoot back to back a .458 Win Mag firing that 450gr at 2250 fps, and then a .30-06 firing a 200gr at 2700. The .458 is making 5058 ft-lbs and 144.6 mom. The .30-06? 3237 ft-lbs and 77.14 mom. Recoil reflects momentum of the bullets transferred to an equal and opposite direction: The .458 is making 59 ft-lbs of recoil compared to 21 ft-lbs from 9-pound rifles in each case. Momentum? 198 for the .458 and 111 for the .30-06. Recoil impulse? 5.77 for the .458 and 3.46 for the .30-06. All of that at the muzzle of course, but it is related to that equal and opposite effect of bullet speed and weight = momentum.

(This was from my Ruger No.1 firing the 450gr Swift AF at a corrected 2317 fps/5363 ft-lbs. At the same place, time and date, the 500gr Hornady recorded 2198 fps — corrected was 2210 fps/5422 ft-lbs.)

If you question all this, then be a dare-devil and embed a 12-inch spike into the buttstock of your .458. It should be approximately .458″ in diameter. Cut it off at about 8″ with 2″ embedded. That would leave 6″, and rest the point against your shoulder. Pull the trigger. How deep do you think that spike will go? I suggest that it would completely penetrate your shoulder — bones and all! That would be the effect of momentum.

1) Momentum is related to velocity and bullet weight, and Terminal Effect is a product of kinetic energy at impact, sectional density and cross-sectional-area of the bullet.

2) It’s obvious that bullets for the 9.3 of a given SD will be heavier because of the larger bore. They are also slower but have more momentum and TE.

(This was a 286gr Nosler Partition from my 9.3 X 62 that took a black bear on Sept.4/2013 – Range was 68 yards and it retained 73% or 211grs of original weight. MV was about 2622. It was protruding through the hide in the flank from a frontal chest hit, and fell to the ground while skinning. Penetration was about 30-inches.)

3. While the .338 WM has a greater water capacity to it’s mouth of about 12% than the 9.3 X 62, it’s bullets are considerably longer taking up a significant amount of that extra capacity if each is loaded to the same COL. Also, the 9.3 X 62 has a much better expansion ratio (ratio of powder burned to volume of bore) meaning it is more efficient in it’s use of the powder. Then, the powder employed in the .338 WM is usually – but not always – of a slower burn rate for the heaviest bullets. That means using more powder than what would be useful in the 9.3 X 62. The 9.3mm (.366) bullets have an area at the base that is 17% greater than a .338 bullet, meaning that the psi has an area that is significantly greater to push on than the base of a .338 bullet (.10516 sq-in vs .08969 sq-in). So, all-in-all the extra space of the .338 WM cartridge doesn’t make it more productive than the 9.3 X 62 when each is loaded to the same psi and have equal barrel lengths. But with the heaviest bullets for each it falls behind the 9.3 X 62 by a meaningful amount, especially when you employ the Terminal Effect formula. In using the lighter bullets, it does shoot a few inches flatter at long range.

4. I would really choose to use the 250 NP from the .338 WM in a moose hunt at 2700+ fps. I have used it in my .340 WBY. In 9.3 X 62 I’d use the 286gr at 2600+, and as you can see it about matches the 250 in trajectory while giving more “thump” at impact at any range.

5. I think the two “heavies” — 275 AF and 320 Woodleigh are intended for really heavy game at closer range. Therefore, I’ve limited them to 350 yards.

(This is my 9.3 X 62 in a Tikka T3 Lite)

6. I don’t like the TSX bullets for the 9.3 as they take up too much of the case capacity that should be reserved for powder. I use 70 grains of RL-17 for each Nosler bullet, the 250 AB and 286 NP. I can do that because of the capacity of the Hornady case and a COL of 3.37″ for all bullets (limited by the clip). The powder is compressed by about 8% but is safe due to the fact of being a relatively “slow” powder for a 9.3 X 62, and the expansion ratio is superior in 9.3 X 62. I also run psi at the same level as a .338 Win Mag. Tikka, the maker of my rifle, also makes an identical rifle chambered in .338 Win Mag. It does come with a 2-inch longer barrel, however.

7. Are these two capable mountain cartridges? The answer is an obvious YES if the right bullets are chosen and driven at near max velocity in a rifle of no more than 8.5 lbs. Mine comes in at 7.7 with scope, rings and 4 cartridges. I’d use the 250 AB at about 2760 fps. That load shoots MOA while one grain less shoots 2714 into 0.44″. If one can handle the recoil of 42-43 ft-lbs, it could tag a goat or sheep to 300 yards with ease. The .338 WM is somewhat better in the recoil department shooting a 225gr.

8. HANDLING and RECOIL: The Ruger Hawkeye African in .338 Win Mag is listed on Ruger’s website at 8 lbs even at 44.75 inches overall, including the muzzle brake. Usually, about one pound is added when a 3 – 9 X 40mm scope is mounted, plus ammo, making it a bit heavy at around 9 lbs for a Mountain Rifle. There are others, of course, that would be less burdensome, such as the Tikka T3 Lite that may be too light for some sensitive shoulders. Nonetheless, if you don’t mind the weight of toting a 9 lb rifle up rugged mountains, the recoil from the .338 Ruger with the above loads will go from about 36 ft-lbs for the 225gr up to around 37 or so for the 275 AF. Mine, well, thumps me by quite a bit more: around 42 ft-lbs for the 250 AB at 2714 and 48 for the 286, and 47 from the 320 Woodleigh. Why less from the Woodleigh? Less powder burned.

IMPORTANT CAUTION: NONE of my loads are presented as recommendations or solicitations for others to try. YOU MUST ALWAYS be responsible for making SAFE handloads.

‘Till the next when we discuss this: WHY THE .45-70 IS STILL VERY POPULAR AFTER 143 YEARS.

Sometime during this past week I re-read an article by famed writer, Craig Boddington, in the November/December, 2014 edition of SHOOTING TIMES entitled “North America’s Big Three”. The gist was to present his view of the three “best” cartridges for ALL North American hunting. I had just finished my own series on “Five Hunting Rifles For All Game”, having reference to all hunting of the five classes of animals hunted throughout the world. I had completely forgotten about Boddington’s article (limited to North America), and just happened to pick the RIFLE SHOOTER magazine out of a pile. I thumbed through it and decided to read again his thoughts on a battery of three for each and every animal of North America that is typically hunted using a rifle. (Of course, most, if not all, could be hunted using a bow, shotgun or muzzle-loader as well, but those are topics outside the realm of hunting rifles.)

Boddington admitted that these were HIS choices (in 2014), not what he made twenty years prior to 2014, and perhaps not what he might choose in another twenty years down the road. However we may understand that, as applied to his personality, at least he was able to be honest in that regard, and flexible. Yet, too often flexibility and mind-changing over what one appreciates more than something else, if it occurs too often in a relatively short time frame, may produce in the reader the impression of a rather fickle or “wishy-washy” person. Mind you, he covered his tracks by presenting arguments as to why he made the choices he did at the time of the article in question. Still, I recall a piece he wrote some time prior to the article I’m referring to. In that report he presented a defence of his character in suggesting that as a professional writer/editor he should have the liberty to change his mind with technological advances in products related to rifles and their shooting components. Granted — that would be expected. But not long after the .270 WSM came to market, he switched from owning the .270 Winchester as his “favorite” for deer hunting to the .270 WSM. Now, at least as of 2014, the .270 Winchester (non-magnum) is his favorite for “medium” North American big game because of better bullets. “Back-in-the-Day”, however, the 150gr Nosler Partition was available, and often used in the plain-jane .270 Winchester! So, huh?

(One of several bears that was hitting our bait during one week in mid-September of this year)

Though in all fairness to Boddington, I too will have to admit to certain attitude changes in regard to medium-bore rifles in particular. And that came about due to three factors: 1) A penchant to improve what is “old” but good — and to make it better. 2) New and better technology; and 3) Wanting to try something different but “new” to me. That brings me to ask the question of our theme: Are these two — the .338 Winchester Magnum and the 9.3 X 62 — really comparable in 2016 employing the latest technology in bullets and powders? Some, with only assumed knowledge of the facts dating to the birth in 1905 of the 9.3 X 62, and no hands on experience, might dismiss such an idea as ludicrous. Others, with proper research and perhaps some experience, would likely agree that the two are similar in some ways but different in others.

There’s little doubt that the famed 9.3 X 62 Mauser has over the last decade or so “caught on” in many quarters among North American hunters as suitable for the largest game on this continent, as well as abroad. It would therefore seem logical to make a detailed comparison of the ballistics of each employing the best available rifles and handload components of today.

(Those are 250gr Nosler AccuBonds — they have a polycarbonite tip and a bonded core. They leave the muzzle of my 22.5″ barrel at over 2700 fps employing a relative new powder: RL-17, and shoot three at 100 yards into less than 1/2 moa)

Several, who follow my analysis of such matters, already know I wouldn’t attempt this without a fair amount of hands on experience with each — so I have no particular axe to grind. In fact, I like and have a healthy respect for both, but I want to bare the facts as I have experienced them. This is for the benefit of any who may want to know, without prejudice, how such comparisons might actually be made without “hot air” getting into the room.

First off, to date I’ve owned two .338’s and helped one son make reloads for his Remington 700 in .338 WM with a 24″ tube. My first sported a 20″ barrel and my last a 26″. So I have some experience with a 20″, a 24″ and a 26″. I also did considerable reloading for mine, one of which became a .340 WBY by a simple re-chamber job by a very competent gunsmith. Though the first .338 WM, a Sako FS carbine, went moose hunting the trigger was never pulled on a moose. The second, an A-Bolt SS in LH with a 26″ barrel was soon made into the .340 Weatherby Magnum, and was fired three times on a bull moose — twice at 165 yards and once at 25 yards. Besides that, the .340 was shot approximately 1000 times. The Sako was fired about the same number of times developing handloads. However, I witnessed the effect of my son’s .338 on moose and saw the results of a friend shooting a medium-large black bear from his .338 Browning A-Bolt Medallion — a 210 Nosler Partition leaving the muzzle of the 26″ barrel at around 3000 fps.

(My son, Phil, with his .338 Win. Mag. loaded with 250gr Hornady SP’s at an MV of about 2730 fps. This was our moose hunt in N. Ontario in 1997)

Question: Why did it take three shots from my .340 Wea. Mag. to put the moose down for keeps? More on that later, but all shots hit where intended. They were 250gr Nosler Partitions leaving the muzzle at 3000 fps, about the same speed as my friend’s .338 shooting the 210gr Nosler Partition. But my shots were all offhand — two at 165 yards and later, a third at 25. His shot was at 95 yards from a rest. The bear was maybe 300 – 350 lbs and the moose about a thousand. The bear travelled about 40 yards, the moose zero. Both shots at 165 were to the chest tight behind the left shoulder. As we approached, it staggered to its feet but wasn’t going anywhere. At 25 I put one into the rump and it went down to stay where it was first shot. No chasing after it in very rough terrain.

My experience with a 9.3 X 62 is limited to my one and only rifle in that chambering — a Tikka T3 Lite that I’ve owned since the spring of 2011. I’ve handloaded the following powders and bullets: Powders were RL-15, H414 and RL-17. I’ve stopped at RL-17 as nothing else comes close to it in performance with perhaps the exception of MR2000 and possibly Big Game, neither of which I’ve tried because of availability problems and no real need to try and improve on my results from RL-17 (which is scarce these days as well).

Bullets in this order: 286 Hornady SP/RP; 270 Speer; 286 Nosler Partition; 250 Nosler AccuBond; 232 Norma Oryx and 320 Woodleigh SP. So far, I’ve fired it about 250 times (est.) and killed three bears with one bullet each. The first bear was crippled by a young friend and I finished it with a 250 Hornady from a few yards at a muzzle velocity of around 2400 fps. The second bear was a three-year old, growing fast and lean, pressing the 6-foot mark. It was shot frontally at 65 – 68 yards using a 286 Nosler Partition at an MV of 2622 fps (4365 ft-lbs). The third bear was October 1st of last year. I used the 250gr Nosler Accubond at about 2714 (avg. testing of that load). It was another 6-foot bear at 85 yards. There was complete penetration leaving a massive blood trail that ended at the bear having died in mid-stride after 20 yards. Needless to say, I think, that I’d use that rifle and the loads I’ve developed so far for any big game hunting I could envision up to Cape buffalo on The Dark Continent, or brown bear, inland grizzly, bison, musk ox, etc in North America. And I shouldn’t neglect to mention hogs, whitetails, bl.bear, caribou, elk and moose. I really don’t NEED anything more. (I have a load for the 232 Oryx at 2450 that along with the 286 Hornady at 2400 could care for ANY woods or brush hunting imagined. Both loads shoot sub-moa). But what about mountain hunting? That will be discussed in my next article.

Before we present real ballistic comparisons (that will be given in Part 2) I want to point out some facts related to the history of each that greatly influences opinions:

1) The 9.3 X 62 is the oldest by 53 years but it’s design is quite modern.
2) It has never been a military cartridge being designed for German and other European settlers in East and Central Africa for defence against dangerous game and crop raiders. Also, to put meat on the table from the over abundance of the various antelopes of those regions. In those pursuits it performed admirably.
3) WWII put an end to German munitions factories, so ammo to feed the thousands of 9.3 X 62 Mausers on the Dark Continent and Europe were left without support, which made room for the British .375 H&H to become its replacement.
4) The .338 Winchester Magnum was born in 1958 from a necked-down .458 Winchester Magnum for the largest and most dangerous game of Alaska, and with an eye on big game, if not the Pachyderms, of Africa.
5) In other words, as far as North American hunters were concerned, the 9.3 X 62 was an unknown entity and the .338 Win Mag could do anything as well, if not better, where legal… or so insinuated, and at times stated, by the opinion makers.
6) Nonetheless, the Europeans and some PH’s of Africa kept the 9.3 X 62 alive and some good ammo was still being produced for it by RWS, Norma and a few other Euro manufacturers.
7) Perhaps 20 years ago, some American gunwriters, wanting to try something different, began to experiment with home-made re-barreled rifles in 9.3 X 62. In addition, some Scandinavian countries had mandated that hunters could only own so many rifles so many began to unload their well-used 9.3’s onto the North American market. That’s the beginning but not the end of that story as it quickly gained traction as an excellent medium encroaching on the territory commonly held by the .338 Win Mag and even the more famous .375 H&H Of course, that was already a given among the cognoscente of Europe and Africa. Word got out, and the 9.3 X 62 was given a new birth in the New World.

The story behind my 2011 acquisition of a Tikka T3 Lite in 9.3 X 62 has already been told a few times here at Lovin’ The Big Bang. But in case someone has missed that part, here it is in brief form once again: I was looking to purchase another .35 Whelen but they seemed very hard to come by, at least within an affordable price range. Yet, in making my search on the website of one of our largest gun emporiums in Ontario — perhaps the largest — I came across what looked like a good deal on a new Tikka T3 Lite in 9.3 X 62. Actually, there were two of them. I had read some articles on that chambering, looked up its ballistics and was satisfied it belonged in the same medium grouping of rifles as the .35 Whelen. Also, there was a slightly used .338 RUM for approximately the same price. Having owned the .340 for 10 years, I was aware of the ballistics produced by the RUM — about 3000 fps from 250-grain premium bullets. Yet, when I handled each — the 9.3 Tikka and the .338 RUM side by side in the gun shop, I was immediately struck with the overall handiness of the 9.3 Tikka, while knowing I would not in reality lose much in ballistics when the best handloads were applied to each at realistic hunting ranges. So the Tikka came home with me. That choice has never been regretted.

Next time: handloading experience with each and their best ballistics.

To dip my toe in the ocean of philosophy for a moment, I’ll do that in a little cove of ballistics. I’ve previously stated somewhere that choices in ballistics for particular game animals has more to do with philosophical impressions than practical reasoning — for most, most of the time. Take for example a group of a dozen or so hunters who, several years ago, had an annual hunt for groundhogs using weapons presumably designed with The Big Five in mind! Each year they settled on the same cartridge — a different one than previous years — including, believe it or not — the .458 Winchester Magnum! Obviously, the goal was NOT to determine “the best” for the termination of woodchucks!

We may have some polite arguments “around a campfire” over what’s best for particular game under certain conditions, but how much ballistic energy is required to terminate a deer will only result in an endless, and often futile, debate on what deer is being discussed, where, and the countless experiences involved. Surely, we don’t need the “power” of a .270 Winchester to kill a deer, do we? But what deer is being discussed and at what range? Also, is it a 6 year old buck from northern climes that has endured severe winters in tough country, and carrying a ready-for-winter weight approaching 400 lbs or, on the other hand, a two-year-old southern doe that barely tips the scales at a hundred?

Because most hunters are NOT trophy hunters, many of those will shoot far more “deer” in a lifetime than the “pro” trophy hunter! I have yet to meet a “professional” trophy deer hunter or, for that matter, a “trophy” hunter of any sort in my various wanderings for game. In about three decades of membership at the same shooting club, I recall having met three that were preparing for an African trip. I’m sure there have been many more than that because I’m not at the range every day nor every hour of each day that I’m there. But an educated guess would tell me that around 90% of those who are dedicated big game hunters at our club are not “trophy hunters”. That’s not to say that none want a “trophy” quality deer, moose or bear, but that simply they are hunters who enjoy the hunt for whatever and just hope to fill their tag. Sure, we’ll all boast over an extraordinary specimen, but that’s a bonus, not the primary goal. I’ve yet to meet a moose hunter, for instance, who passed up shooting a legal bull because it wasn’t big enough!

Of course, I’m speaking of the average hunter who might be a club member, not the hunter who can afford to hire an outfitter to the tune of $5000 to $50,000, or more, for one trophy or several. Still, the majority of those “average” hunters referred to are not necessarily negative toward those who can afford that kind of fun… they might be just a bit envious though. However, the 90% are mostly content to “get out there” for their annual deer or moose (elk?) hunt. The vast majority of local moose hunters in Ontario, for instance, belong to some “camp” of six to a dozen hunters and go to the same area each season. They seem quite satisfied if one or two of their members bag moose, be it calf, cow or bull. That’s just hunting for its own sake, and the meat is a bonus. The same could be said for deer hunters, but bear hunting is more of a personal thing. For predators like coyote it might be solo or with one other hunter friend, or two at the most. And they all shoot what they brought along as their rifle of choice. In my more recent bear hunts, for example, one brought a crossbow, another a BP rifle, and I a centerfire medium-bore rifle. We were hunting over different baits however, though the effort was cooperative.

What does all that have to do with a rifle, or rifles, for small game and varmints? Let’s think about that in the light of our philosophical discussion above. How much “gun” is “needed” to kill a groundhog? But surely range must become a part of any serious consideration of this matter. There’s no doubt that I’ve terminated far more woodchucks than I have all other species combined! In that process I’ve used .22 Long Rifle cartridges from a variety of rifles, a .22 WM, .223 Remingtons, 6.5 X 55 and, believe it or not, a .356 Winchester belonging to my oldest son. There may have been others that I don’t recall at the moment. Now both the 6.5 X 55 and the .356 Winchester, in particular, are considered big-game rifles of the medium game sort — as I’ve described that in the previous blog. Both have been used to kill moose of the middlin’ kind, but for “our” moose — the big bulls under all conditions — they’d not be MY choice for that activity. I well recall that a very close friend of our eldest son went “up North” for a chase of our largest deer. He was a relatively young man at the time, with zero experience in that region and an equal amount of experience in chasing moose! Well, he sure did a lot of chasing after he fired the first shot from his weapon of choice — or perhaps the only one available to him. The story told to me by his best friend, my son, was that the beast was shot at least seven times — I think that in hindsight he simply lost count. Anyway, the moose died but there wasn’t much un-blooded meat left over that was fit to truck home. Yes, I hear the howls of protest all the way from the Rockies to Newfoundland… I know, I know, the meek .30-30 has accounted for thousands of moose of both sexes and a variety of dimensions, just like as in the case of our oldest son’s father-in-law from New Brunswick where he grew up among these giant deer and shot them from 30 yards into the “hump” (spine) with his trusty .30-30. And many a Swede or Norwegian has accomplished the same feat from their puny 6.5s.

I’ve owned two of the 6.5 X 55s. The first was a military conversion and the second was a Sako sporter. It was the Sako that was used for woodchucks, jack rabbits, coyote and deer. But it failed it’s first-and-only deer hunt on a 235 lb (est.) eight-point in a snow storm during the last few legal moments of deer season. Well, the bullet failed. It was a 120gr Nosler BT at 2900 fps intended for coyote. There’s a story as to why it was in my hands at that moment instead of the 1895 Marlin I’d been toting all morning, but suffice to say that the 120gr was shredded by a 1″ hardwood and only fragments hit the deer. Lesson learned: don’t take a varmint load to do what only a big-game load can accomplish under conditions most often-than-not to be encountered in The Haliburton Highlands! That was my last .26-caliber. It’s perhaps informative that in all my hunting exploits for big game (really, big-game of the medium class), I’ve never met another hunter who favoured a 6.5-anything for our class of white-tailed deer! The number one cartridge for whitetails in our neck-of-the-woods is without doubt the ubiquitous .308 Winchester followed by a sprinkling of .270 Winchesters and .30-06s if they also envision a close-to-home moose hunt. But even then, the .308 Win. is a favourite for those giant deer at woods ranges.

Apart from some wannabe moose hunters, living by the taxes paid by others, who hoped to tag a moose with their borrowed or hand-me-down tattered .303 British or .32 Winchester Special, I’ve never come across a serious moose hunter in the clear-cuts of Northern Ontario, who travelled a thousand miles to get there, using anything less than a .30-06, and most of those have long since been replaced by .300 Winchester Magnums or, at least, a 7mm Rem Mag. Of course, some “elite” hunters show up with a Weatherby or two. I’ve been known to have an appreciation for Weatherbys, namely, a 7mm, a .300 and a .340. Those are not your typical varmint rifles: the 7mm would shoot a 175gr NP at 3000 fps from a 24″, the .300 gave 3200 fps from a 180gr in a 24″ and the .340 caused 250gr NPs to exit the muzzle of a 26″ at an honest 3000 fps. Those were reserved for BIG varmints!.

But for varmints of the predator status that may attain 60 lbs, while I have lots of experience with a couple of .223 Remingtons, I’d choose more than a .22-caliber even in a centerfire. And I also want a rifle and cartridge that I have some knowledge of and experience with. As mentioned, I have adequate experience and knowledge of the 6.5 X 55, and consider it ideal for a 60 lb predator or even a larger one as in a timber wolf that may go over 100. Yet I want something with a bit more reach should I want to use it as a “crossover” for real wolf on the far side of a frozen lake –which is where I’ve done a significant amount of my limited “wolf hunting”. For me, that also excludes the .243 Winchester, which I have no experience with, but I’d want more than it offers being familiar with its ballistics.

So my choice, under the terms I’ve laid out for personal hunting of Canada’s top canine predator, is the .25-06 Remington. While I’ve not done a lot of hunting with one, yet I have extensive handloading experience with an M70 Winchester in .25-06 Remington. And I’m very impressed with its ballistics, accuracy and moderate recoil.

On Sept. 5/94, my 22″ M70 gave 3170 fps corrected average from six shots to the 120gr Speer SP from 56.5 grains of RL-22 and 3166 fps corrected average to the 117gr Hornady BT from 57.2 grains of the same powder. While I’ve no record of having tried them for lesser species, any of the good 100s should leave the muzzle in excess of 3300 and the 85s around 3500 – 3600 fps according to Nosler. That’s smokin’!

A number of years ago, I recall a phone conversation with one of Hornady’s reps who said he’d killed a 300lb black bear somewhere in Ontario using his .25-06. While I’m sure he told no lie, yet he was hunting bear using an outfitter. That’s a further measure of security, especially if matters don’t go as expected.

While researching my old loads for the .25-06, I came across some of my initial loads for the A-Bolt SS Browning in .338 Win Mag before it was converted to a .340 WBY. A couple of days earlier I’d been at the range testing those loads prior to the .25-06 loads. My best load from the 26″ barrel of the Browning in .338 WM was 74 grains of RL-19 (a book load) behind the 250gr Nosler Partition. Three of them went: 2833, 2837 and 2835 fps. Corrected to muzzle speed was 2842 fps. They grouped into a perfect triangle of 1.125″. That put doubts into my mind about rechambering it to a .340 WBY… BUT, I did anyway! BTW, that would have been a much better “bear gun” than any .25-06!

I got off the phone just a few minutes ago in discussion with my bear-hunting partner, Brian. Brian shot a medium bear our first night on stand nearly two weeks ago, using his 50-caliber BP (a single-shot of course). I was 200 yards away toting my 9.3 X 62 as backup (using last-year’s load of the 250 ABs that I shot my bear with Oct.1st, 2015. It was one-and-done from an MV of 2715 fps). We looked for Brian’s bear in the wrong direction for about an hour and then darkness was upon us. You see, the cloud of smoke from the muzzle blinded Brian as to the direction the bear took upon being hit. As we were about ready to quit, Brian stumbled upon some blood at around 50 yards from the bait in the opposite direction. From that point on, the direction the bear took was into a swampy area with three-foot high swamp grass. The bear was found and retrieved, and by that time it was pitch dark. If you left-click on the photo below to give adequate enlargement, you will see where the sabot-slug hit. It was a 285gr leaving the muzzle at about 2000 fps. Range was 30 yards. The bear still made 100 yards into a swamp, that was somewhat dry due to this year’s drought but the swamp grass was still three feet high! I like to drop them where they stand or not more than 20 yards from the bait.
(Brian’s bear after it was retrieved in darkness and unceremoniously deposited into the box of his pickup. The two pics at the top are of myself in the treestand and the stand after I vacated it to help Brian find his downed bear. I heard the shot very clearly around 6:45 pm. The bullet made a complete penetration of the chest but we don’t know if it expanded or not.)

Back to the phone conversation this morning: Two evenings ago, Brian’s son was on stand with him over the same bait and pulled the trigger of his 12-gage slug gun on a slightly larger black bear. They are still looking for it today. With huge difficulty they have followed its trail into a huge swampy area with knee-deep mud and brushy conditions in addition to deadfalls. They are now back at it and can only get a dog involved with its trainer tomorrow morning. I’ve offered to help, but I might become an added problem if I get stuck in the vast bog of the area!

UPDATE: The above information is now three days old. They did a full search again on Saturday using the dog. When the dog got to the last sign of blood it lost interest! Of course, the scene was then three days old! Apparently, the bear wound from the 12ga slug was superficial. As a rule of thumb for bear hunters over bait: If you don’t find the bear within about 100 yards (110 meters) of where it was hit, you are not likely to find it at all. Likely, it has survived it’s ordeal.

All that to say… after 31 bear hunts I’ve learned a whole lot that I don’t want to have to re-learn. One thing I’ve learned on my own is the importance of these three things: 1) Use more than “enough gun” — because what might be considered “enough” under “normal” conditions might NOT be under some “other” conditions — and learn to shoot it expertly by putting in adequate practice time; 2) Know the game you’re hunting very well or hire someone who does, and 3) Know its variable habitat or hire someone who does.

I’ll NOT use a .25-06 for ANY bear that I hunt! And not BP as I want to be sure of seeing what happens after the shot!

Again, MY RIFLE CHOICES for the FIVE CLASSES of Game Animals:

1) -Pachyderms — a .458 Winchester Magnum (You, of course, are free to choose among whatever is recommended by your PH.)

2) -Soft-skinned Dangerous Game — my choice would be, and has been, a 9.3 X 62 Mauser. There are many others as good but not necessarily better.

3) -Large and heavy non-dangerous game like bison — I would choose a .45-70 with modern loads in a strong rifle that can handle at least 40,000 psi. Many others are as good including anything that might be used on soft-skinned dangerous game such as brown bear or lion.

4) – Medium big-game — up to 1000 lbs. That includes most hunting by most hunters and why rifles chambered in .308 Win, .270 Win, .30-06, 7mm magnums and .300 magnums are the best sellers. My choice is the .300 Winchester Magnum because I have great respect for its ballistics, accuracy and versatility. And I’ve a lot of handloading experience with a half-dozen as well as using one in a variety of hunting scenarios. An argument could be well made that a .300 Win Mag might be the best choice for a one-gun, do-it-all for 95% hunting throughout the world. Of course, ditto for the .300 WBY, which, all things equal, is about 100 fps faster.

5) Finally – small game and varmints (varmints in particular). If I were ONLY considering groundhogs and fox, as examples, I’d recommend the .223 Remington — which I have used extensively for such purposes. However, I’m more inclined these days, due to the scarcity of groundhogs in our area, to focus on coyotes, brush wolves and grey wolves. For that reason I’d choose for myself the 25-06 Remington for the other reasons already mentioned. (The photo below is of wolf tracks made by three just minutes earlier. I missed them by perhaps a half-hour and never caught up to them. They were fresh. Left click for enlargement)

So there you have it — Five for all game (personal and appropriate handloads in all) :

For Class One I chose the .458 Winchester Magnum (or its equal) for the Pachyderms.

In Class Two I’d go with my 9.3 X 62 for thin-skinned dangerous game. Anything from the .338 magnums to the .375 magnums making at least 4000 ft-lbs would be excellent as well.

For Class Three, the large and heavy non-dangerous game over 1000 lbs, I almost chose a .300 magnum — the Winchester or Weatherby — but on further reflection, I chose the .45-70 with modern loads in a strong single-shot or a Marlin. The reasons were expressed in the former blog. My 22″ Marlin and 22″ H&R would both shoot a 465 and 470gr hardcast bullet with GC at 1900+ fps into MOA. That bullet also has an excellent BC of .365. With a zero of 180 yards it reaches a max elevation of about 4.5″ and is around -22″ at 300 yards. If your hold is on the hair-line of the hump the bullet will impact at over 1400 fps and plus 2000 ft-lbs mid-ships for any large game, like moose or bison in North America.

Next up is a rifle for CLASS FOUR – medium game. That is any non-dangerous game animal from about 60 lbs to less than 1000. That is a very large territory and why most hunters favourites embrace cartridges such as the .308 Winchester, .270 Winchester, .30-06 and 7mm Rem. Mag. Nonetheless, the .300 magnums are very popular for this class as well, especially in the West and in mountainous terrain. And why several suggest that’s all anyone needs for all North American game, plus most others throughout the Planet.

Most of the game harvested with these cartridges include the various deer species up to moose, black bear and even smaller grizzly, goats, sheep, hogs and some predators among the canines and cats. They also serve well, I’m told, for most, if not all under all conditions, for the PG of Africa. That’s a bunch and why they are so popular. They differ somewhat in ranging ability and why the .300 magnums are at the head of that class.

But please keep in mind what I’ve been preaching throughout this current series: There IS a crossover effect or possibility for any of the cartridges mentioned. For example: the .308 Winchester is considered a very good target rifle, a varmint rifle, a small game rifle, a medium and a BIG game rifle if not a dangerous game cartridge for most applications, though it has accounted for the likes of leopard and grizzly bear! It is also a favourite among our local moose hunters as shots are rarely if ever over 150 yards. In fact, if I were to choose a medium game rifle on purpose with known limitations, it would likely be chambered in .308 Winchester because through the best handloads it matches or exceeds former factory .30-06 loads but in a lighter, handier package that has less recoil.

However, even though I’ve done handloads for a friend’s .308 Winchester, I’ve never owned one. So instead, I’ll choose what I know best and that is a .300 Winchester Magnum, or the .300 WBY. I’ve owned and used eight .300 magnums, six of which chambered the Winchester case with barrel lengths from 23″ to 26″, and I’ve never owned a more accurate rifle for medium game. I once shot and cleanly killed a jack rabbit at a paced-off 285 yards from a single shot fired in leaning against a tree. The rabbit was facing away from me! The load was a 180gr leaving the 26″ barrel at nearly 3200 fps! On the other end of things, I flattened a nine-point buck at 35 yards that dropped so fast from a chest hit (no CNS) that it didn’t even have time to blink! So if I were to choose, what I have chosen, for most N.A. medium game under most conditions it would have to be another .300 Winchester Magnum as I just have too much experience with one, and too much brass lying around with nothing to do. I do have a barrel in .308 Norma though… I just need an action to screw it into and a cheap plastic stock!!
(That’s a .300 Win Mag helping to keep the hunter confident in a bear stand. The load is a 200gr AB with an exit velocity of 2970 fps.)

Hey, after all, I’m a Magnum Guy! So my choice for game to 1000 lbs is a .300 magnum under most conditions. In fact, if that’s all I had, I could live with it.

However, let’s not be too critical of someone choosing a 7-08 for moose hunting. It would not be my choice under all conditions but I once knew a man who was 83 at the time, preparing for a moose hunt with his 53 year old daughter. He was at our range trying factory and handloads in his daughter’s 7-08 for their planned moose hunt in Northern Ontario. That was his daughter’s rifle… his was chambered in .308 Winchester. I’ve owned a very good M70 Featherweight in 7-08, but for me it would not be a primary moose gun for certain parts of N. Ontario where possible ranges could vary from a handful of yards to over 500! In travelling that far (1000 miles/1600 kms), I’d want at least a .300 magnum, and prefer what I’ve chosen — a medium in .338 Win Mag or .340, a 9.3 X 62 or .375 Ruger or H&H. Bullet effect on impact is a factor of velocity, caliber, construction and sectional density. Oh yeah, AND placement! (I’d never live that down if I didn’t mention it! I get tired of hearing: “It’s not what you hit ’em with but where you hit ’em”. Huh? Now that was a deep thought, I think… Was it really Einstein who made that a principle of physics? Or maybe Newton himself?)

Another thing that downright irks me: Posters on forums who speak in such general terms about success with their rifles for deer, elk, moose or whatever, in these terms: “I killed 3 elk last year with my .270 Winchester”. You have to guess the details of whether they were
shot with 110gr varmint bombs or all copper 150s, or which brand and weight, range, and size of the animals. I submit there is a huge distinction between an immature cow elk that may weigh 300 lbs at 100 yards from a 750 lb bull at 350 yards! Then, the “little matter” of whether an outfitter was hired, or was it a DIY hunt? All of that, plus other important details, are pertinent to the chase!

(These are all .458-cal. bullets. There’s some very good ones among them for large game and dangerous game, and at least one or two that could serve for medium game and varmints. .458″ is a very versatile caliber.)

I once knew a gun shop owner by the name of, we’ll call him “Sam”. My son, Phil, and I used to visit that shop on a fairly regular basis when we lived in Toronto since it was just around the corner from us. Since “Sam” was Italian, he had lots of Italian friends who got together for a moose hunt “Up North” on an annual basis. “Sam” used his “three hundred maguem”. He had lots of “goodies” in his shop and was an excellent salesman. Yet he knew little to nothing about ballistics except that he “knew” his “maguem” was good for moose at any range — no matter how far. So he described to us his latest adventure for moose upon his return, in which he took shots at “a moose” (sex not determined) at an unknown distance. He “assumed” he hit it but “da moose” was never found!

Let it be known that I don’t write for “Sam”, as everything in this current series would be lost on him, and for any others who think their “pet rifle” is good enough for any game animal, anywhere under all possible conditions.

To this point, we’ve looked at four of the five classes of game and suitable rifle cartridges. The final class is SMALL GAME and VARMINTS. Some would separate these into two groups. However a rifle suitable for varmints like coyote would be more than adequate for small game like rabbit. Eastern coyote and “brush wolf” in particular can reach a maximum of around sixty pounds. What would I recommend? And perhaps more importantly, what would I use? The answer might surprise you — then again, perhaps not!